Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Jack by the hedge]

He's a psychologist

So let's just bin the actual evidence and take this guy's opinion.

Stupid argument.

... If someone has just got back from being the First Man on the Moon with international coverage, you'd expect them to be more like someone who's just won an Olympic Gold Medal than someone fidgeting and wishing he was elsewhere.

This wasn't some post-match interview with a sports person literally a minute after they won. For how long after they "just got back" would that euphoric sensation last? Should we ask your psychologist? How long after they came home from the moon did that press conference happen? How excited should they have felt to be doing a press conference? The massively exciting bit was finished. This was back to work on the dull but necessary stuff.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I rather suspect it is literally faux outrage.

You don't believe your dishonesty annoys people?

 

[Steve]

You don't believe your dishonesty annoys people?

It's just one more "fake" thing that Vixen is so, so good at detecting. Most everything that happens in the real world is fake to her.

 

[steenkh]

No, it is a scientific fact that for most people (assuming no personality disorder or being on certain medications) lying causes a stress reaction which is completely autonomous (i.e., you have no control over it [think: sweating when you are hot, or going red when embarrassed or angry]). That is how lie detectors work. They are rarely permissible in a court of law but the principle is sound. When caught fibbing, you tend to sweat more and the increase in moisture registers on the ECG. This can be as little as a tag on a finger connection. If you have ever shaken a hand that is cold and clammy (and probably limp) that is the effect of nervousness.

Body language is another thing you don't know anything about. It is well known (but denied by the people who peddle the books and products about it) that body language, and lie detectors are largely bogus. Both have some basis in reality, but not everybody conform to the theory behind them, and people, either naturally, or through training, can work around them.

 

[JayUtah]

Psst. Those AREN'T negatives.

They're contact transparencies. The fun thing about reversal film is that you can bipack it and make contact transparencies without an internegative, making them trivially easy to make. The author of the source article is incorrect when he says they are camera originals on Estar thinbase. The transparencies he's shown scanning are obviously not thinbase. They're the ordinary base that would have been easily obtained as double-sprocket 120 format and therefore cheap to use to make copies. And he has "partial" rolls because the originals were longroll, so you can only copy part of the roll onto existing formats.

 

[steenkh]

Look, I am really sorry you are feeling outraged. But I have no control over your emotions.

Perhaps you also have no control over your own replies?

 

[Foster Zygote]

If you click the arrow back, it was to do with someone claiming the astronauts were not downbeat at the press conference. You don't have to listen to the body language guy, you can just watch it for yourself. They look like they lost a shilling and found a sixpence. They clearly know this video will be used years, decades, centuries down the line so they have to be really guarded in what they say. Thus they are very careful to not confirm they were on the Moon and Collins very quickly tells Armstrong 'We did not see any [stars]'.

And those Sandy Hook parents clearly weren't showing the grief symptoms that all those self-appointed human psychology experts who listened to Alex Jones just knew they should.

 

[JayUtah]

Body language is another thing you don't know anything about. It is well known (but denied by the people who peddle the books and products about it) that body language, and lie detectors are largely bogus.

No one who knows the science calls them "lie detectors." Polygraphs by themselves have a deception detection rate only just barely above chance. A polygraph exam is an enhanced interrogation. Yes, I have taken them. You are presented with a machine you are told can invariably detect deception. You are told that the consequences of being caught in deception by the machine are worse than revealing the truth in the pre-examination interview and then being tested on it according to the machine. The aim is to compel the subject to tell the truth in a supposedly low-stakes situation before being subjected to the high-stakes examination connected to the machine.

 

[JayUtah]

I rather suspect it is literally faux outrage.

No, people are genuinely put off by your bad behavior.

You are routinely given en the opportunity to have a calm discussion of the relevant facts, but you invariably decide to abandon that and try to rile up your critics instead with irrelevant minutiae and tongue-in-cheek evasions. You have been given a wealth of information regarding the Apollo program and the evidence it collected, but rather than debate it seriously you choose to behave like a child. That is indeed quite off-putting if not downright pathetic.

 

[Vixen]

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out the overwhelming scientific consensus that's been maintained for the last half century plus regarding the reality of the Apollo Program. I'm quoting actual knowledge that I've gained throughout my life because I'm actually interested in learning, not just presenting myself as a rogue intellectual with an intelligence score in the top tenth of a percent. Knowledge which, for example, makes it clear to me when you lie about how you've easily photographed stars in a manner supporting some hoax nut's ignorant claims, or that you use the word "radiation" with histrionic alarm, but don't actually know anything about it.

You're the one blindly quoting the standard party line of idiots on the internet because you like the ego trip they're peddling.

The Apollo Program was certainly real. I have never seen anyone dispute that. I am afraid the level of radiation and radioactivity involved in going to the Moon is a real health hazard.

 

[JayUtah]

He's a psychologist...

He's a YouTuber.

...so if he studied behavioural and experimental psychology as a science, as I did, then it is all based on observable and measurable data.

What he claims to be able to do on his monetized YouTube channel is pure pop psychology bunk. I covered his channel in depth earlier in the thread and presented the actual published findings explaining how his side hustle is not actual psychology, So, as usual, "Asked and answered."

So, if someone has just got back from being the First Man on the Moon with international coverage, you'd expect them to be more like someone who's just won an Olympic Gold Medal than someone fidgeting and wishing he was elsewhere.

Asked and answered. They did not "just get back from the Moon."

 

[JayUtah]

The Apollo Program was certainly real. I have never seen anyone dispute that.

Your sources vigorously dispute it.

I am afraid the level of radiation and radioactivity involved in going to the Moon is a real health hazard.

Asked and answered.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I realise the concept of actually addressing the post you are replying to is alien to you, but that is what I was doing, Maybe you should try it somewhen?

Would you expect to see stars in photos taken by the Apollo 11 astronauts, given the settings we know they were limited to?

She's both claimed to have easily photographed stars herself, in a manner supporting Allen's claims, and admitted that doing so would take, at minimum, tens of seconds for exposure time. Having inadvertently admitted to a lie by acknowledging a recently learned fact while attempting to present herself as knowledgeable regarding the subject, she seems reluctant to return to the matter.

 

[Worm]

Thus they are very careful to not confirm they were on the Moon

This is absolute nonsense. Have you watched the whole press conference, or even read the transcript? They confirm any number of times the full details of how they got to the moon and walked on it. If you are just talking about the single question, then they are explicit about not seeing stars from the surface without optics, but also explicit in that statement is that they were on the surface. Do you expect them to preface every answer with 'Well, when we were on the moon, which we totally were, honestly...' ?

ARMSTRONG We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
ALDRIN I don't remember seeing any.

If you want to live in the fantastical belief that none of the Apollo 11 crew ever stated explicitly that they had been on the moon, then you are....well, deluded I guess.

As to body language - you have no idea how the first man on the moon should react. Nor does anyone. He was first. They don't fit into some nice little pidgeonhole you have for them because they were exceptional. The best of the best. They don't react like most people because they're not most people. NASA were not in the habit of sending ordinary people to the moon. They were, by definition, exceptional. I'm not saying they were supermen, but they lived in a working environment that you don't seem to be able to comprehend. Where any number of decisions were a matter of life or death. Doing it right was not just a vague aim - it was an absolute requirement. So no, they don't get all giddy talking to the press, they do their job.

 

[JayUtah]

Having inadvertently admitted to a lie by acknowledging a recently learned fact while attempting to present herself as knowledgeable regarding the subject, she seems reluctant to return to the matter.

For Pete's sake she doesn't even know what a negative is. You can't get any dumber about photography than that.

 

[Vixen]

Body language is another thing you don't know anything about. It is well known (but denied by the people who peddle the books and products about it) that body language, and lie detectors are largely bogus. Both have some basis in reality, but not everybody conform to the theory behind them, and people, either naturally, or through training, can work around them.

I was not talking about pop psychology, such as the TV shows that claim to utilise 'lie detectors'. I said 'lie detectors' for ease of reference. However, it is an observable, measurable and scientific fact that a normal person generally does show involuntary ANS stress symptoms when lying. Not everybody does and all such tests can be 'got around' by the wily. I was addressing the claim by a poster that a body language analyst claiming to be a psychologist was automatically wrong.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... I am afraid the level of radiation and radioactivity involved in going to the Moon is a real health hazard.

Maybe you should have read the replies you were given in this thread on that topic. That would have helped you understand the nature and significance of the various problems posed by radiation and the steps taken to deal with them.

Or not. You could just play dumb and say radiation too scary from time to time.

 

[steenkh]

The Apollo Program was certainly real. I have never seen anyone dispute that.

Then what are you arguing for? The astronauts were really on the moon, but all the pictures and the TV transmissions were fake, and they didn't actually take any photographs themselves?

 

[threadworm]

If you click the arrow back, it was to do with someone claiming the astronauts were not downbeat at the press conference. You don't have to listen to the body language guy, you can just watch it for yourself. They look like they lost a shilling and found a sixpence. They clearly know this video will be used years, decades, centuries down the line so they have to be really guarded in what they say. Thus they are very careful to not confirm they were on the Moon and Collins very quickly tells Armstrong 'We did not see any [stars]'.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because my interpretation of body language might outweigh all the objective evidence. Right?

Stupid.

I remember a psychology course in which suggestion was covered. The professor showed the class how easily people could be influenced to place characteristics onto a neutral subject merely by suggesting that the person in a photo looked "shifty" or "nervous", etcetera.